In addition to those that were random killings, but which the spouse was convicted of anyway because “everyone knows” they’re usually guilty.
This only prevents law-abiding cirizens from obtaining firearms and does nothing to stop crimminals from getting them. It is virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to legally obtain guns in India, where they have the strictest gun laws in the world. Yet anyone with money can get whatever they want on the black market there.
I think “random” in the sense of homicides is usually meant to be those crimes in which the victim didn’t have any prior relationship with the victim. So in that sense, the shooting qualifies (apparently the shooter had asked Giffords a question at a prior election event, but I don’t think that really qualifies as a “relationship”).
I imagine the FBI collects statistics on such things, though you’d need to adjust for what type of killing is easier to solve.
Actually random would be when a person kills someone with no real reason for doing so. A hit man who kills a person he has never met because he was paid to do so is not random. John Lennon’s killing was not random either.
I don’t see that as a good definition of a random homicide. If the victim was known to the killer, even if it was just by reputation, and the killer specifically chose that person as his victim then it’s not a random crime.
I seem to recall off the top of my head that most murders are either drug related (ie shootings between dealers and the like) or gang/organized crime related or domestic violence related.
Something like a drive by shooting is VERY rare.
Seriously, what’s a good preventative measure against the Jared Loughners of the world?
Oh lord one of those “if SOME people with mental illness can function and thrive in the mainstream, then ALL people with mental illness should be forced to function in the mainstream, even thou it will mean most of the time functioning at the very edges of the mainstream” advocates.
Bear in mind that Loughner had a mental health history at a COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
It was so severe that they said not to come back until he had developed a plan.
Most communinity college kids just go to classes and eat lunch in the food services.
It’s not like a four year college. It didn’t seem to be one of those cases that was a misunderstanding or someone being a wee bit odd
You might want to weight the insanity aspect when considering “randomness.”
What random variable of the equation did Loughner’s suffering some mental afflication have to do with it?
Does mental illness not seemingly strike at random in many cases?
Not to mention illegal handguns (and rifles, shotguns and the like - killing people isn’t all that different than killing deer).
Right, because if a criminal might get a gun then gun control is obviously worthless.
Of course, that doesn’t make any sense. After all, if the items abover were just as effective as a firearm, militaries wouldn’t bother arming themselves with modern automatic weapons, they would just stick with swords and Molotov cocktails. Does anyone honestly think he could have done as much harm in Arizona with a spear as he did with a gun? If you do, then why do we need guns.
He started shooting as a child, and had access to guns then. Gun control is kind of a moot point in a culture already rife with guns, it seems to me. The model Glock he used, was flying off the shelves in Arizona, people were afraid it’d be taken off the market. I think that ship may have sailed, and America will have to struggle forward knowing every nut job can probably get a gun, as challenging as that might be.
Society by and large isn’t willing to base its laws on the actions of the insane. For obvious reasons. I find it interesting you think the mentally ill should be the ones setting policy. For one, they are in the minority of the population by far, and this would violate the principle of majority rule. Secondly, by the nature of their affliction it could definitely be argued they are not fit to be making decisions for the rest of society through their acts.
No, but it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge reality. And the reality is that no matter what, we’re still going to have to tackle the problem of why people kill each other in the first place. It doesn’t help anyone to pretend all it takes is a piece of paper saying it’s illegal to own a gun and all the murders will stop. Didn’t we already try that when we made murder illegal? What a remarkable success that law was!
Realistically, laws against criminal activity are simply a deterrent. They do keep rational in line, for the most part. Anyone bent on a violent killing spree is way past that, certainly not rational. Legal remedies aimed at anything other than the root cause (mental inllness, in this case) are just so much hogwash.
Well of course it doesn’t - to someone who doesn’t objectively understand killing and why humans do it to each other.
It depends on the goal, available means and several other variables. One good example can be found in the movie Inglorious Bastards. Killing the enemy by crushing his skull with a baseball bat execution-style and leaving the corpse where more enemies are sure to find it has a certain chilling effect, reinforcing a better understanding of your goals.
Poison gas “is” particularly effective for genocide projects, and economical as well.
The point is it’s not about the chosen weapon. Guns happen to be readily available in this country and quite effective for the occasional killing spree. Nothing in the way of gun control law can ever change that. If we could find a way to keep them out of the hands of dangerous lunatics I’d get behind that, but laws won’t do it. Maybe better integration of the FBI databases with local law enforcement, health care and firearms dealers? Dunno.
While I appreciate your real world experience of having seen Inglorious Basterds, I am a foreign aid worker specializing in conflict zones, including: Kosovo, Yemen, Mindanaou Province of the Philippines, Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, I leave tonight for Afghanistan. I think I have a pretty good understanding of why people kill people.
Anyone who thinks someone could go on a spree killing with a spear and kill as many people as with a modern firearm has no understanding of physics, logistics, or spears for that matter.
Good point. As the discussion on the Tucson incident shows, enough people feel the initiation of violence itself was not entirely so random (though irrational). Who the other victims would be besides Gifford, that was more of a random thing.
Guns are okay; but if you really want to do some mass murdering, you want commercial explosives, or evenhomemade ones. Heck, you can rack up quite a body count with just a jug of gasoline.
And while we’re on the topic of crazy folks who loves them some killing, why are we concerning ourselves with just the ones who want to do some mass murdering? What about the crazy ones who prefer to do their murdering serially? Seems a good many of them favor knives, strangulation, and plain old bludgeoning.
So it was more or less random? 